Waterboarding Rocks!

[BeAChooser]

I see this nation, in 2009, where an entire segment of the political establishment is actually trying to justify torture, and I wonder what exactly went wrong? How did you guys lose your moral compass? When did you guys forget Nietzsche's warning and become the monster you set out to fight? ... snip ... When more Americans are like that, it'll be great to see, as you'll have regained that moral compass.

Could you perhaps tell us what country you post from Uzzy?

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC, would you be willing to personally experience some of this "temporary discomfort" for yourself?

Silly. Why would you think this is a voluntary procedure that a sane person would subject themselves to? If it were voluntary then of course our terrorist friends, like KSM, would have opted out.

And MM, I notice you didn't my hypothetical question?

Shall we just assume your answer is no ... that you would not inflict non-lethal, temporary pain and discomfort even if you thought doing so stood a good chance of saving hundreds of thousands of lives? You'd let those Americans die to preserve your high-minded *principles*?

 

[BeAChooser]

How about you answer my question first

Because I asked my question on this thread before you asked your question.

 

[SezMe]

BAC, read about integrity.

 

[BeAChooser]

Yes, and I see that you conveniently left out this line from the article...

... Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture.

So what? He still voted against banning it. It's the vote that counts. Politicians say one thing and then do another because that's what they really believe or want.

 

[BeAChooser]

Why should we assume the Bush and his, ah, "minions" didn't do so? Didn't they want to prove to the world how right they were?

As I said, DA, if the method of waterboarding, for instance, really is very effective in breaking al-Qaeda terrorists and eliciting valuable information from them, that might not be something we want our enemies to know and understand. The Bush administration, prior to the NY Times politicizing the issue, might not wanted to confirm that. Even now, they might not want to confirm what we learned. Potentially, some of the things we learned might still be a great importance and disclosing the fact that we learned those things might seriously damaged ongoing efforts to defeat al-Qaeda. I can fully understand that possible logic. What I can't understand is why the Obama administration would hesitate to disclose the reports and details if waterboarding didn't work and it would embarrass the Bush administration and folks that then must have lied to the American public about it's effectiveness. Can you think of any other logical reason?

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Here you go folks. Yet another (likely liberal) member of JREF who would let the human race be murdered by the billions rather than apply non-lethal, temporary pain and discomfort to one individual even if he suspected that person had information that could prevent that global murder. Such is the insanity of the left and Obama's followers.

Still lying, eh?

How can you, with a straight face, call me a liar when tsig said as clear as day that a person who lets untold billions die rather than cause temporary pain and discomfort to one person is morally superior to a person who would cause such pain and discomfort in an effort to save those untold billions?

 

[BeAChooser]

What ANTPogo said.

One of the things ANTPogo said is "Those techniques were considered good enough to protect us during a shooting conflict (and potential nuclear war) with the "Evil Empire" itself, after all."

But that situation was far different from the current one. We didn't rely on intel or interrogation to prevent a nuclear attack on the United States, like we must where terrorism is concerned. We relied on deterrence and the threat that we would utterly annihilate with nuclear weapons any country that attacked us with them. The US was prepared to absorb a nuclear attack so we could be sure that one was underway. That's why so much money and effort went into making sure our arsenal was survivable against a full scale nuclear attack by our largest rival. That, not intel, was why this country was never attacked by the "Evil Empire". Nuclear war was at any level was not acceptable unless it was to be for all the marbles. MAD. A policy that worked very well for many decades.

But terrorism is different. It will come in a form that we simply cannot afford to "ride out". Doing so could potentially cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives. That is not acceptable. And after the attack, we might not know with any certainty how to effectively retaliate ... who to retaliate against ... how to prevent the next attack? Except by doing what we are now doing; ie., trying to wage an information war against terrorism and find out about plots before they mature. That was the lesson of 9/11. I hope the current Administration hasn't forgotten that lesson but I'm beginning to have my doubts.

 

[BeAChooser]

Perhaps he would have agreed with me about the plea of justification, a point that you haven't acknowledged or answered because you were too busy posting gibberish.

Actually, I addressed it the first time you mentioned it. But I take the posts in the order posted as I get to them. That's just the way it's going to be. If you don't like it, tough. Furthermore, the issue of justification was addressed earlier in this thread in response to others. Weren't you paying attention?

 

[Prometheus]

All you have to do is redefine the word 'war' to mean something completely different than it ever has before.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

In his book, On War, Prussian military theoretician Carl Von Clausewitz calls war the "continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means."[1] War is an interaction in which two or more militaries have a “struggle of wills”.[2]

Looks to me like the current conflict falls within that definition.

Looks can be deceiving; especially if one doesn't understand all the words he's looking at. Both 'political intercourse' and 'two or more militaries' imply struggle between governments, not governments versus loosely confederated extremist religious zealots. You fail.

In other words, you have no evidence in support of your claim.

No, I'm simply not going to bother to try and convince you on that issue. Because frankly I don't think anything I post would convince you as nothing I post seems to be influencing you on any other issue.

Like I said: You've got nothing. All you need to change my mind is a valid argument backed up by strong evidence in support of its premises. You've not presented anything of the kind.

Since the exchange in question was talking about professional interrogators and not soldiers, yes, the motivation our laws give to soldiers is, in fact, irrelevant to the question at hand.

You'd prefer, instead, to play with definitions. What does "is" mean?

I'm not the one making up new meanings as I go along.

You presented a False Dichotomy (yet another logical fallacy), suggesting that given the choice to either torture or *do nothing*

Under the situation that I described ... having just hours to break a subject and find out the location of a nuclear bomb or hundreds of thousands of people will die, I'm not presenting a false dichotomy. You'd just rather plays games with logical terms than deal with the scenario.

The situation you described, one in which only torturing someone can certainly extract reliable information which must be had immediately in order to save many lives, and one must choose either torture or no other course of action, cannot possibly exist. That's a False Dichotomy. Since you like playing with definitions so much, why don't you look up that term.

it's possible for people to choose to do nothing for some other reason than fear of prosecution, such as because they believe that's the morally correct course to follow.

Do you really think they would be morally correct in allowing hundreds of thousands of people to die rather than inflict temporary, non-lethal physical and mental stress on a single prisoner? If so, I think your moral compass is broken.

No I do not. I also do not think that they would be morally correct if they chose to eat babies while waltzing atop a rainbow. Since both propositions are equally likely, I fail to see the relevance.

People who don't do things that they believe are right only because they fear prosecution are, in my experience, exceedingly rare

Well how vast is your experience compared to mine? There's no way to really know.

For the sake of your ego, I'm willing to stipulate that yours is bigger than mine, while I take solace in the apparent fact that I'm able to use mine a bit more skillfully. You have made a positive claim that such people exist, so the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that this is the case. Please forgive me if I decline the option to hold my breath while you go dig some up.

--but I don't hang out with a lot of far-right-wingers, so maybe you know something I don't.

You know nothing about me. But I guess you'd rather argue with insinuations about me than face the real issue of relative morality.

Lacking any sound argument in support of your position, I've unfortunately got nothing but insinuations to argue with.

As to your quip about my being in denial, I'll thank you in advance not to make such personal attacks in the future.

It's not a personal attack. It's an observation based on what you've said and what I believe to be the truth about human nature.

So, if whatever I say happens to be in disagreement with whatever you believe to be the truth, that means I'm in denial concerning reality. Since you apparently believe that reality consists only of whatever your personal beliefs are, and that is obviously not the case, it seems then that you really are in denial concerning reality.

BeAChooser - Ah yes ... another liberal completely controlled by emotion.

It's actually rather rare to find someone actually commiting a genuine Ad Hominem

Is it an Ad Hominem to call you a liberal? Is that how you feel about liberals? In a negative way? That must be, because saying you are completely controlled by emotion is not at odds with your statement that "I would be acting neither rationally, nor morally. I would be acting solely from emotion."

You might as well add 'Ad Hominem' to the list of definitions you need to check before trying to play with them any further. It doesn't matter how I feel about the term 'liberal'. It only matters that you attempt to associate me with the term in order to fallaciously undermine my position.

BeAChooser - I'm not suggesting torture in situations where you don't have good reason to suspect your *victim* ... snip ...

I think perhaps you meant to say "do" in place of the bolded "don't", otherwise you'd have me torturing every innocent person I came across.

No, "don't" is the correct word and saying that in the context of everything else I posted doesn't imply anything of the sort you suggest. You'd just rather play games with words than face the issue of relative morality.

If you can't understand your own posts, how on earth do you expect others to?

You don't like the word "victim"? Which term would you use to define the relationship between torturer and tortured, "reluctant masochist" perhaps?

Did you also call the terrorists we were fighting in Iraq "freedom fighters"?

Ahh, the old, "I know you are but what am I," defense--almost caught me by surprise; I haven't heard that since about 3rd grade or so.

Regardless, you still don't know whether or not torture will extract that vital information until after you've committed torture--unless you're psychic, in which case you wouldn't need to torture, would you?

With absolute certainty? No. But then I hope you aren't as naive as some here who seem to demand absolute certainty before attempting to save a hundred thousand lives.

I've already told you what I, personally, would do. But it doesn't matter what I, or anyone else would do. What matters is what the law should allow.

all that suggests is that there's a potential exception to a proven valid rule

No, it's an exception to the statement jthat there is "NO CIRCUMSTANCE that justifies torture" ... the statement justifying the rule. Proving the rule, as written, is invalid.

You are conflating moral justification with legal permission. This appears to be the source of your confusion.

If it really is a "new type of war" then how on Earth would you know what "a sure way to lose" is?

Just look at what happened in Iraq. The Iraqi government tried to fight our invasion with the methods of the last war.

Oh, come on! You can't possibly actually believe that the reason Saddam's forces lost is because they were using outdated methods.

And were demolished by forces that leftists in America (many of them in the press) were certain would be unable to defeat the Iraqi military without horrendous losses on our side (and I'm not talking about the terrorist campaign that cropped up later). Don't you remember? So call it a truism. The surest way to lose a war is fight the last one. Look around. You'll find a lot of people seem to accept that. Even in the military.

There are ignorant fools at all points on the political spectrum, and in all walks of life. Anyone who thought Saddam's forces would have been capable of such a feat certainly fell into that category. I'm not concerned with them. What I am concerned with is that, although you recognize that using methods from the last 'war' is certainly a mistake, you seem to think that skipping back to to the methods of a thousand years ago is somehow better.

Originally Posted by Prometheus
And even in war, soldiers are not allowed to torture their prisoners.

And why does the other side in this war not respect that rule? Could it again be that you are using rules that don't fit the current circumstances?

...or perhaps it's because they're Un-American. Is that what you aspire to be?

So you equate the sort of torture we know that al-qaeda uses to our waterboarding? Is this not just another example of you believing in a moral equivalence that is ludicrous?

I do no such thing, and there's no possible way to rationally infer that from anything I've posted.
'Strawman Fallacy'--add it to the list.

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC bringing up Brown for the umpteenth time in a thread about torture is so on topic.

It is on topic because whether Eric Holder is trustworthy and non-partisan is very much an issue in this thread. And I was only responding to a poster who tried to use a very similar sounding scenario against me.

Now SM, since you've decided to join us, answer my question. Would you inflict some pain or discomfort on an individual, if you thought you had a 50% chance of eliciting information that could prevent 100,000 people from dying in the next couple hours due to a terrorist plot? Yes or no?

 

[BeAChooser]

Nova said "there is no more evidence" for the effectiveness of torture vs. that of psychic techniques. I think psychics also claim that their techniques work. That sounds like it's on par with someone who conducts torture claiming that it works.

Perhaps you told us already but let me ask again. Are you for or against Obama releasing all information on the interrogations of KSM and the other waterboarded al-Qaeda, as well as any other data necessary to conclude whether waterboarding worked or not in comparison to conventional techniques?

 

[BeAChooser]

The" liberal mainstream media", your answer for everything.

Denial. Your answer for everything.

 

[Prometheus]

Talk about hyperbole.

Tell us, Prometheus, do you really think the Founding Fathers saw no moral difference between hurting someone and murdering them? If so, why was murder punishable by death at the time but causing someone some pain or discomfort wasn't? Don't preach to me about the ideals the United States was founded on if you can't answer this question.

No, I do not think that the Founding Fathers saw no moral difference between hurting someone and murdering them. Luckily for me, this does not undermine my position in any way.

Furthermore, do you know that Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers, said "strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation."

Yes, I have seen that quotation before. I even agree with it. Again, luckily, that does not undermine my position in any way. I am now convinced that our difference of opinion is all about you conflating moral justification with legal permission. Please note that Jefferson did not write the above sentiment into any part of the Constitution. As I've stated before, I admit the possibility that I might find myself in a position where I perceived that my only moral course would be to break the law. Should that be the case, I would expect the law to come down on me like a hammer, and I would consider it my duty to sacrifice my own well being in support of the principles of Egalitarianism and the superiority of Rule of Law to Rule of Man, which our nation was founded on.

We have people in this thread who are saying they wouldn't hurt one apparently guilty person to learn some information that might save the lives of every single human being on the planet. I think Jefferson would have agreed with me, that such a viewpoint is simply insane.

Well then you, and I, and Jefferson are in agreement with each other--on a completely irrelevant point. Why are you so obsessed with this completely impossible fantasy?

 

[BeAChooser]

Both 'political intercourse' and 'two or more militaries' imply struggle between governments, not governments versus loosely confederated extremist religious zealots.

You don't know what you are talking about. You are just blowing smoke. Hamas, a bunch of extremist religious zealots, was said to have a military wing long before they assumed control of a quasi-country ... long before 9/11. And the military wing is associated with terrorism by country after country. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas's military wing formed in 1992, is named in commemoration of influential Palestinian nationalist Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam. Armed Hamas cells sometimes refer to themselves as "Students of Ayyash", "Students of the Engineer", or "Yahya Ayyash Units",[40] to commemorate Yahya Ayyash, an early Hamas bomb-maker killed in 1996.[9]

... snip ...

Hamas's military branch, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, was created in 1992. During the 1990s and 2000s it conducted numerous suicide bombings[5] and other attacks directed against civilians, including the 2002 Passover suicide bombing.

And Hamas also engaged in political intercourse as any reading of the above will show long before it assumed control of any state or quasi state. Even common sense should tell you that entities that are not states can engage in political intercourse because "Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics ) and that definiton has nothing to do with governments.

Like I said: You've got nothing.

Like I said, I've decided you no longer worth the effort.

I'm not the one making up new meanings as I go along.

Sure you are, as I just proved above.

The situation you described ... snip ... cannot possibly exist.

If you say so.

Do you really think they would be morally correct in allowing hundreds of thousands of people to die rather than inflict temporary, non-lethal physical and mental stress on a single prisoner? If so, I think your moral compass is broken.

No I do not. I also do not think that they would be morally correct if they chose to eat babies while waltzing atop a rainbow. Since both propositions are equally likely, I fail to see the relevance.

You'll say anything to avoid addressing the issue of moral equivalence, won't you. The question I asked must really be giving you trouble.

You might as well add 'Ad Hominem' to the list of definitions you need to check before trying to play with them any further. It doesn't matter how I feel about the term 'liberal'. It only matters that you attempt to associate me with the term in order to fallaciously undermine my position.

You must think the label undermines your position, else why would you complain? I'd not object if you called me a conservative.

Ahh, the old, "I know you are but what am I," defense--almost caught me by surprise; I haven't heard that since about 3rd grade or so.

Ah, you must be one of those internet posters who likes to claim intellectual superiority and intelligence. Since you apparently think I'm still in the 3rd grade.

But it doesn't matter what I, or anyone else would do. What matters is what the law should allow.

Not according to Thomas Jefferson, who I quoted earlier in this thread.

You are conflating moral justification with legal permission.

Not I. I'm simply responding to the linking of morality and legality by others. One of them being Obama.

Oh, come on! You can't possibly actually believe that the reason Saddam's forces lost is because they were using outdated methods.

You don't? All the military analysts I've read seem to think the tactics used in Iraq and Afghanistan by the US were something the world hadn't really seen before. Rapid victory was much more dependent on communication, information, mobility and precision guided weapons than any previous conflict. Whereas, conventionally, Iraq geared up to fight the last war. And lost spectacularly fast.

There are ignorant fools at all points on the political spectrum, and in all walks of life. Anyone who thought Saddam's forces would have been capable of such a feat certainly fell into that category.

Those fools got a lot of media attention and certainly affected expectations in the press and public as to how fast Iraq would be defeated and how bloody the cost would be.

What I am concerned with is that, although you recognize that using methods from the last 'war' is certainly a mistake, you seem to think that skipping back to to the methods of a thousand years ago is somehow better.

I've done nothing of the sort on this thread. To even suggest that is to lie.

BeAChooser - So you equate the sort of torture we know that al-qaeda uses to our waterboarding? Is this not just another example of you believing in a moral equivalence that is ludicrous?

I do no such thing, and there's no possible way to rationally infer that from anything I've posted.

Really? When I ask why the other side in this war doesn't respect the rule outlawing torture and you respond that they are unAmerican and ask if that's what I aspire to be, aren't you accusing me of promoting the same tactics that al-Qaeda uses ... i.e., drawing a moral equivalence between what I recommend (temporary pain and discomfort to elicit information in cases where thousands of lives are at stake in a time urgent situation) and al-Qaeda's undeniably horrific treatment of prisoners? In which case, aren't you suggesting there is a moral equivalence between the two?

 

[BeAChooser]

Please note that Jefferson did not write the above sentiment into any part of the Constitution.

But he did act on it when it came to enforcing the Constitution. He made the statement to justify his signing of the treaty authorizing the Louisiana purchase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact ). Jefferson believed that "the Constitution did not bestow on the federal government the right to acquire and possess foreign territory." For political reasons, and for the good of the country, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts and signed the treaty.

Well then you, and I, and Jefferson are in agreement with each other--on a completely irrelevant point.

But it is not irrelevant at all. One can't know what tomorrow will bring. Perhaps a canister of chemical agents or a suitcase nuclear device in the hands of terrorists is already making its way into this country and we know it. And our only chance of preventing a great loss of life in the next few days will be capturing someone who knows where it's headed and interrogating them to find out that information.

 

[Lonewulf]

And our only chance of preventing a great loss of life in the next few days will be capturing someone who knows where it's headed and interrogating them to find out that information.

By waterboarding him over two hundred times?

Sure sounds fast and efficient to me! Enough to save the world!

No, not really.

The experts telling me that torture is not the most effective interrogation technique tell me that this silly false dichotomy that you keep clinging to, like a dead lover to your necrophiliac whims, is long dead and gone.

Time to let go. You'll get dry rot if you keep humping it.

 

[SezMe]

Now SM, since you've decided to join us, answer my question. Would you inflict some pain or discomfort on an individual, if you thought you had a 50% chance of eliciting information that could prevent 100,000 people from dying in the next couple hours due to a terrorist plot? Yes or no?

I reject the premise and the range of answers offered.

You probably won't like it, but I (like many others before me) first take the position that it is an unrealistic scenario. It should NOT be one upon which our nation bases its policy. As far as is publically known it has never arisen and it is just a fanciful exercise to come up with a sequence of events that would create such position. Thus, spending as much time as you do on it wastes time and effort evaluting realistic scenarios that are more likely to come to fruition and which offer similar ethical/policy conundrums.

But let me, for the sake of the argument, speak to your hypothesis. First, for me to know with 50% certainty that an event is a couple of hours away, I must have one or more individuals in my custody who have provided this information without torture. In that case, I would continue with the proven techniques rather than resort to torture.

But continuing, suppose I chose torture. It is widely agreed - and I have every confidence that you will join in - that the subject will say anything to stop the pain. McCain, as have so many others, have said so. Now, however, you only have a couple of hours to try to investigate one or more utterances he has blurted out. Good luck picking the right one. A bad choice has bad consequences - your scenario, not mine.

Finally, to keep this somewhat short, I just read today (don't have the link handy) that the first interrogator of Zubydah began to get information from him within hours of his capture and that he continued to be a valuable source for days until the CIA took over the process and effed it all up. So the successful professionals appear to be on the side of non-torture techniques.

So, why torture? It's a loser.

PS: Did you read the article about the WWII guys? It should make you ashamed of yourself.

 

[leftysergeant]

I am going to say it as plainly as i can. Only a degenerate lunatic approves of including torture in our intelligence reppetoire.

Only a degenrate lunatic would order that our military or our CIA to employ torture.

Only a degenerate lunatic thinks that there is ever likely to be any exigency so desperate that it would become justified to torture a prisoner to get answers.

Only a degenerate moron with a bunch of loose headbolts think that this country has ever gained anything from torutring prisoners.

Only a degenerate moron believes a war criminal who tells us that torturing someone has made us any safer, especially after that war criminal had been involved in violations of our civil rights.

The degenerate lunatic who initiated this program brought shame and disgrace upon our nation and spat on the teachings of generations of soldiers and sailors before him and put the lives of our soldiers at risk because now enemy soldiers will be afraid to surrender to our soldiers.

The only apology I will accept from the brain-damaged monsters behind this torutre program involves their making large incisions in their abdominal walls. That's really how much they disgust me, and how much shame an American should feel about having allowed these vermin to have ever held any power of any kind in this country.

 

[applecorped]

Keep waiting for that apology.